Harvard: Gun Control is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gunmurder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownershipnecessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

Yep, not surprised at all at this. Gun control is so stupid, it will never be implemented to the extent to actually do anything. They'd only be able to slow gun ownership, they only know about guns that are registered, but I'm sure there are countless millions of guns that are not registered, and were obtained through being given, or inherited.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

Well, what they're saying here is even in countries that do have extremely stringent gun controls.. They have very high murder\suicide rates. Restricting gun ownership does not reduce death or violence. In fact there's a negative correlation, according to this study.

When people do not have access to firearms, they simply improvise or substitute.

Well, what they're saying here is even in countries that do have extremely stringent gun controls.. They have very high murder\suicide rates. Restricting gun ownership does not reduce death or violence. In fact there's a negative correlation, according to this study.

When people do not have access to firearms, they simply improvise or substitute.

Exactly. Its not like they are going to ban knives, and such.

Or they just get guns by going outside of the law. If someone wants something bad enough, they will get it, and in that case it could be worse anyway.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

I lay bets that the judges currently in the Supreme Court overturn the initial ruling and viola, guns will again be illegal in Washington D.C.. This would be the time where if I was a D.C. resident, I'd look into buying from the black market. This case will set the precedent for the capital cities of every state and from there, the rest of the country. With the way this nation is heading to a complete totalitarian police state, it will not be long after the initial ruling is overturned that we'll be fighting another revolution.

There is a good reason to have high-powered weaponry but I don't expect the likes of you to ever think of an actual reason, let alone two or three. I can give at least three reasons. Protection against invasion of multiple countries on US soil, protection against angry, rioting mobs when the dollar becomes worthless and finally, protection of our civil liberties and against a tyrannical government hell-bent on stripping us of those rights.

Come back when you can come up with a better response than that lame cop out, "lolbertarians". The rest of your post is garbage and you can't even back up your own claims. Until you can, we will continue to see your post as childish nonsense.

There is a good reason to have high-powered weaponry but I don't expect the likes of you to ever think of an actual reason, let alone two or three. I can give at least three reasons. Protection against invasion of multiple countries on US soil, protection against angry, rioting mobs when the dollar becomes worthless and finally, protection of our civil liberties and against a tyrannical government hell-bent on stripping us of those rights.

Come back when you can come up with a better response than that lame cop out, "lolbertarians". The rest of your post is garbage and you can't even back up your own claims. Until you can, we will continue to see your post as childish nonsense.

Give him a break!

To be fair, your proposed reasons are laughably bad and should not even be deemed worthy of this discussion.

Invasion of multiple countries? You mean the time when North Korea decides to invade the US? Like seriously...
Protection against rioting mobs? Lol, you do know that weapons make these mobs potentially MORE harmful then they already are?
Protection of civil liberties? So you want to march into the White House with a bunch of likeminded fools and forcefully obtain your civil rights with guns?

I think you know where this is going to. A disagreement between you and me, however this time fuelled by your inappropriate response towards "Tweep".

I never understood the logic behind banning guns in America. Unless you can keep the law strongly in place for a few decades and wait for some cultural shift then you won't see any sort of benefits, and those benefits would be minimal. Firearm dependent crime exists because there's a disparity between the rich and poor in this nation. If we actually bettered our nation, crime rates would go down. Enforcing a law that would almost entirely not effect those already inclined to criminal activity solves nothing.

Originally Posted by Morganator

There is a good reason to have high-powered weaponry but I don't expect the likes of you to ever think of an actual reason, let alone two or three. I can give at least three reasons. Protection against invasion of multiple countries on US soil, protection against angry, rioting mobs when the dollar becomes worthless and finally, protection of our civil liberties and against a tyrannical government hell-bent on stripping us of those rights.

I don't buy those excuses because they're unrealistic:

A.) There's pretty much no nation(s) that could invade the US for any practical gain. Even if only a tenth of the US's population still had easy access to firearms it wouldn't matter. There's no country or alliance out there that has the resources, reasons, or technology to do it.

B.) What, you're going to open fire into a crowd of people? In what scenario would that be necessary?

C.) The average American is too uncaring to ever stand up to the Government, even if it was obviously necessary. I legitimately think our society is doomed in the long-run. It's happened every single time in history to a hegemonic state at the waning of its power. The question is if the American Empire will collapse like Rome or eventually buckle and settle down like France and Britain did.

I never understood the logic behind banning guns in America. Unless you can keep the law strongly in place for a few decades and wait for some cultural shift then you won't see any sort of benefits, and those benefits would be minimal. Firearm dependent crime exists because there's a disparity between the rich and poor in this nation. If we actually bettered our nation, crime rates would go down. Enforcing a law that would almost entirely not effect those already inclined to criminal activity solves nothing.

I don't buy those excuses because they're unrealistic:

A.) There's pretty much no nation(s) that could invade the US for any practical gain. Even if only a tenth of the US's population still had easy access to firearms it wouldn't matter. There's no country or alliance out there that has the resources, reasons, or technology to do it.

B.) What, you're going to open fire into a crowd of people? In what scenario would that be necessary?

C.) The average American is too uncaring to ever stand up to the Government, even if it was obviously necessary. I legitimately think our society is doomed in the long-run. It's happened every single time in history to a hegemonic state at the waning of its power. The question is if the American Empire will collapse like Rome or eventually buckle and settle down like France and Britain did.

B: How about the Rodney King riots and the break ins\violence that occurred, forcing Korean store owners to open fire with AR15's (and other military grade weaponry) on the assailants? This was in the early 90's man. Hardly ancient history.

C: There's no valid counter point to this one. Even reading Rapture's doom and gloom response, it doesn't make sense. Sounds like "just give up" to me. Btw? Your end game scenario of the US "buckling and settling down" would pretty much validate the existence of the B argument. Or have we all forgotten the crap that happened during Katrina?

And even if the "average American" would never stand up to the government, that doesn't mean the existence of those who would (there's at least two of them in this thread) is in question.

@Morg,

I agree with what you're saying.. But c'mon man let's not rage here. No reason why we can't be civil right? Even if we disagree with what they're saying, we can still be cordial.

To be fair, your proposed reasons are laughably bad and should not even be deemed worthy of this discussion.

Invasion of multiple countries? You mean the time when North Korea decides to invade the US? Like seriously...
Protection against rioting mobs? Lol, you do know that weapons make these mobs potentially MORE harmful then they already are?
Protection of civil liberties? So you want to march into the White House with a bunch of likeminded fools and forcefully obtain your civil rights with guns?

I think you know where this is going to. A disagreement between you and me, however this time fuelled by your inappropriate response towards "Tweep".

At least check your arguments before you post...

Why should I give him a break? He made a laughably ignorant post with no substance to back it up and he went straight to the name calling. Why should I give him the benefit of the doubt? As for your post. It's laughably ignorant as well but you knew this coming in. You have even less of an excuse than "Tweep" since you're not even a newbie on these forums. Read up on some American history before you post next time. Vulgotha has an excellent post to start with. I'll give you some more topics to research. Try the Chicago Riots, Original War of Secession i.e. The American Revolution and other historical events.

Check yourself before you post.

Originally Posted by Rapture

I never understood the logic behind banning guns in America. Unless you can keep the law strongly in place for a few decades and wait for some cultural shift then you won't see any sort of benefits, and those benefits would be minimal. Firearm dependent crime exists because there's a disparity between the rich and poor in this nation. If we actually bettered our nation, crime rates would go down. Enforcing a law that would almost entirely not effect those already inclined to criminal activity solves nothing.

I don't buy those excuses because they're unrealistic:

A.) There's pretty much no nation(s) that could invade the US for any practical gain. Even if only a tenth of the US's population still had easy access to firearms it wouldn't matter. There's no country or alliance out there that has the resources, reasons, or technology to do it.

B.) What, you're going to open fire into a crowd of people? In what scenario would that be necessary?

C.) The average American is too uncaring to ever stand up to the Government, even if it was obviously necessary. I legitimately think our society is doomed in the long-run. It's happened every single time in history to a hegemonic state at the waning of its power. The question is if the American Empire will collapse like Rome or eventually buckle and settle down like France and Britain did.

I think the word you might want to look into using for all three scenarios is.. wait for it... deterrence.

@Vulgotha. I would have responded better had he not discounted a whole segment of the population i.e. libertarians. It's hard to take someone seriously when they do that.

B: How about the Rodney King riots and the break ins\violence that occurred, forcing Korean store owners to open fire with AR15's (and other military grade weaponry) on the assailants? This was in the early 90's man. Hardly ancient history.

C: There's no valid counter point to this one. Even reading Rapture's doom and gloom response, it doesn't make sense. Sounds like "just give up" to me.

A.) Sure it is, but it's not enough to function as a realistic excuse in this case. Even if the US population possessed no personal firearms it's not going to act as any real leverage for another nation(s) to invade.

B.) As far as I know the Korean store owners were mostly using the weapons to scare off rioters. So yes, in that sort of scenario I suppose it did prove some use.

c.) How is it remotely 'giving up'? Realizing the decline of your society isn't like that. It's simply recognizing and evaluating reality. I'm just saying that if push comes to shove then the people will sit back down and watch more TV. You and Morgan are a very small minority, so I'm sure some better weapons would help. But that's not the point here. I never said Morgan's statements were wrong, just unrealistic.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

Btw? Your end game scenario of the US "buckling and settling down" would pretty much validate the existence of the B argument.

I'm not seeing how. The US would probably become more stable after it got over itself and its power trip.

Originally Posted by Morganator

I think the word you might want to look into using for all three scenarios is.. wait for it... deterrence.

Which for the most part doesn't matter or play much of a important factor.

All gun control does is disarms law abiding citizens. Criminals will still have guns because they operate outside the law.

Should there be a control on what type of gun though? Seriously just wondering what you guys think, not trying to probe or anything.

My personal opinion is, if you want to arm yourself the do so. But I also believe there has to be some restrictions around that. Such as the above. And also things like not being able to carry it in public areas, or heck even include zoning laws etc.

Should there be a control on what type of gun though? Seriously just wondering what you guys think, not trying to probe or anything.

My personal opinion is, if you want to arm yourself the do so. But I also believe there has to be some restrictions around that. Such as the above. And also things like not being able to carry it in public areas, or heck even include zoning laws etc.

Again, would like to what you guys think about this.

Preventing people from carrying in public areas would accomplish largely nothing imo. Because, as already noted by us and various studies (like the one included), criminals could care less.

These ideas... They're rooted in what appears to be common sense on the surface, and backed with largely good intent. But they just don't work.

A friend of mine, who also likes guns (very intelligent), maintains that certainly some kind of weapons should simply be banned. At first blush I agreed with him, but I thought about it some more. I mean, back some 70 years ago you could mail order a machine gun.

"Well what about rockets and explosive!" again, this also appears to be common sense at first glance.. Until you realize that, first of all, black markets exist and they are prolific. For another, if somebody wanted to make explosives it is so easy a child could find the resources and materials. There's a plethora of material (both written and online) on how to do this stuff.

Again, the Colorado theater shooter? He had explosives with him that he made at home. All of the basic ingredients are completely legal.

Laws just put a smiley face on it and say "Well, you can't have this and official retailers can't sell them. Ha!" it doesn't stop the crazies from getting ahold of or making it. Nor does it stop the idiots from doing it improperly and blowing themselves up by accident.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.